Oklahoma passes bill making performing abortions a felony

[NoNukes]

Outlawing abortions has already been declared unconstitutional. What do you have against the Constitution?

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

What does that have to do with anything?

They sometimes need to be interpreted and ruled on.

 

[Timmy]

Maybe "pro life " oklahaoma should get rid of the death penalty first .

Grand jury report criticizes Oklahoma officials over botched executions | Fox News

 

[JoeB131]

[Q
Kind of like fining and ruining bakers for not baking cakes?

I've got the perfect place for those bakers..

Asshole.

No, you see an Asshole is someone who invites someone to patronize their business, and when they do, refuses them service and starts screaming Bible Verses at their mother.

They cement their status as rectal sphincters when after someone points out they broke several laws, they proceed to post the names and addresses of the people who complained about them on social media, subjecting them to abuse by other Bubba Rednecks.

 

[tyroneweaver]

thank you Oklahoma.

Oklahoma passes bill making performing abortions a felony

Hey if the left creates corny gun laws and in an effort to circumvent the 2nd amendment; nothing says pro lifers can't do the same thing to roe wade

 

[tyroneweaver]

Maybe "pro life " oklahaoma should get rid of the death penalty first .

Grand jury report criticizes Oklahoma officials over botched executions | Fox News

That's what they're trying to do numbskull. Abortion is the death penalty.

 

[JoeB131]

thank you Oklahoma.

Oklahoma passes bill making performing abortions a felony

Hey if the left creates corny gun laws and in an effort to circumvent the 2nd amendment; nothing says pro lifers can't do the same thing to roe wade

They can try, but the courts will strike them down.

In this case, OK's governor vetoed the law because she didn't want the expense of litigating it.

 

[martybegan]

There is a difference between something being declared unconstitutional and something actually being unconstitutional. 5 of 9 unlected lawyers may have the power to make crap up, but we don't have to accept it.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

What does that have to do with anything?

They sometimes need to be interpreted and ruled on.

Making crap up is not "intepreting or ruling".

 

[martybegan]

[Q
Kind of like fining and ruining bakers for not baking cakes?

I've got the perfect place for those bakers..

Asshole.

No, you see an Asshole is someone who invites someone to patronize their business, and when they do, refuses them service and starts screaming Bible Verses at their mother.

They cement their status as rectal sphincters when after someone points out they broke several laws, they proceed to post the names and addresses of the people who complained about them on social media, subjecting them to abuse by other Bubba Rednecks.

it figures a complete asshole such as yourself wants government to punish people YOU see as being an asshole. It fits in with your overall narcissism and general evilness.

 

[JoeB131]

t figures a complete asshole such as yourself wants government to punish people YOU see as being an asshole. It fits in with your overall narcissism and general evilness.

No, I want to punish them because they openly and deliberately broke the law and made no attempt to correct when their violation was pointed out to them. They instead doubled down on their offense by waging a hate campaign against the people who reported them.

Don't like PA Laws. Wonderful. Recommend a bill in the legislature to repeal them.

Until they are repealed, you need to follow them, though.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Oh well, you can't kill your baby in Oklahoma. Try another state that supports that. Bye.

Did the governor not veto the bill?

She did.

Mary Fallin vetoes ridiculous bill.

Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

 

[NoNukes]

More ignorance and stupidity from the right – in addition to hypocrisy.

Supreme Court justices aren’t subject to elections for a very good and sound reason: the practice is consistent with the fact that we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; and the rule of law would perish if jurists were subject to ‘popular vote,’ and the injustice inherent in the democratic process.

That this has to be explained to a conservatives comes as no surprise, and is frankly disturbing.

Moreover, when the Heller Court ruled un-Constitutional the DC handgun ban, we heard nothing from the ridiculous right about 5 of 9 unelected lawyers ‘making crap up,’ such as an individual right to possess a firearm.

When the Supreme Court rules that a given measure is un-Constitutional, it is actually un-Constitutional – whether that measure violates the rights of gun owners or the privacy rights of women.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

What does that have to do with anything?

They sometimes need to be interpreted and ruled on.

Making crap up is not "intepreting or ruling".

Is that what the Justices do?

 

[martybegan]

t figures a complete asshole such as yourself wants government to punish people YOU see as being an asshole. It fits in with your overall narcissism and general evilness.

No, I want to punish them because they openly and deliberately broke the law and made no attempt to correct when their violation was pointed out to them. They instead doubled down on their offense by waging a hate campaign against the people who reported them.

Don't like PA Laws. Wonderful. Recommend a bill in the legislature to repeal them.

Until they are repealed, you need to follow them, though.

So you loved the idea of punishing MLK as well right?

PA laws don't need to be repealed, they need to be limited to actual PA's.

 

[martybegan]

1. I have never considered us a democracy, and have pointed out the nature of our republic several times.

2. What needs to be explained to progressive twats such as yourself that courts were never meant to create new rights, and legislate from the bench, which is the current progressive model of "progress".

3. The right to keep and bear arms is explicit in the document, unlike all the "rights" you idiots come up with.

4. A right is inherent, all the government can do is protect it or supress it, and saying something is unconstituional even if idiot judges decide it is not is my RIGHT, you snivelling drive by hack.

5. My views are far more consistent than any progressive twatwaddle you can come up with.

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

What does that have to do with anything?

They sometimes need to be interpreted and ruled on.

Making crap up is not "intepreting or ruling".

Is that what the Justices do?

Progressive justices, yes. They go on feelings and end goals.

 

[Agit8r]

thank you Oklahoma.

Oklahoma passes bill making performing abortions a felony

And how much money will that state have wasted once it goes to the supreme court. That is what you are looking at.

You have to remember that the GOP never worries about wasting money. They just use it as an excuse to defund education and whatever.

 

[NoNukes]

There are different interpretations, do you not realize that?

What does that have to do with anything?

They sometimes need to be interpreted and ruled on.

Making crap up is not "intepreting or ruling".

Is that what the Justices do?

Progressive justices, yes. They go on feelings and end goals.

So, you do not believe in the Constitution and the American system. Got it.

 

[martybegan]

What does that have to do with anything?

They sometimes need to be interpreted and ruled on.

Making crap up is not "intepreting or ruling".

Is that what the Justices do?

Progressive justices, yes. They go on feelings and end goals.

So, you do not believe in the Constitution and the American system. Got it.

I believe in it as envisioned, not as it is being currently applied due to progressive asshats.

If all you got is the standard "you hate X, fuh fuh fuh" response, then you don't really have one.

 

[paulitician]

I'm very reluctantly Pro-Choice, but i don't mind States deciding this for themselves. You wanna kill your babies, do it somewhere else. Oklahoma doesn't want you there. I'm ok with that.

 

[JoeB131]

So you loved the idea of punishing MLK as well right?

PA laws don't need to be repealed, they need to be limited to actual PA's.

Except Dr. King fought for the repeal of those laws. He made a good argument against them.

The argument you guys make is 'My Magic Sky Pixie doesn't want me to make a cake for gays", when there are a shitload of people breaking other Sky Pixie Rules that they'd have no problem making cakes for.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, yeah, Did Doctor King respond to Jim Crow laws by publishing the names and addresses of people who wouldn't serve him, subjecting them to threats of violence?

I didn't think so.